whats out there?

8:56 a.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
36 reviewer rep
148 forum posts

Before all the experts weigh in on this one, I`d like to say why not at least believe in the possibilities of a Bipedal hominid primate species roaming the remote places of our planet. THe topic I`d like to open is, what are your beliefs in this and can you relate any personal experiences or inexplicable sightings of said primate, assuming it is a primate?

9:39 a.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
27 reviewer rep
200 forum posts

There is no possibility of the existance of a species of large, intelligent, bipedal apes roaming the US. They could never keep their dwellings, waste, and selves hidden so completely for so long. It isn't possible.

10:07 a.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
581 forum posts

I have often seen "Bipedal hominid primate species" roaming the planet. They even attempt to communicate with me. Sometimes they do this on Backcountry forums.

I am no more certain of their intelligence than they are of mine. Taxonomy is troubling as I cannot determine from their appearance whether they are a single species - like Canis familiaris, which assumes many different forms, from Dachshund to Great Dane - or many different species. Some even appear to be Republicans.

10:08 a.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
36 reviewer rep
148 forum posts

Perhaps the word intelligent is explanitory here Yock.

10:22 a.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
36 reviewer rep
148 forum posts

I would be even more clever than overmywaders if in opening this topic I secretly was referring to homo-sapiens. The alledged bigfoot is the topic. Surely, amongst the intellectually elite that frequent this site there is someone that believes in the possibility of an as yet scientifically unclassified species of primate.

10:50 a.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
25 reviewer rep
67 forum posts

I heard one in the bush once it was a grunting groaning sound when I went to investigate it fled with amazing speed looping across the valley towards the lake with a primitive scream, it was then I realized it was someone who wiped with the wrong leaves...must have had thorns in it. :-)

But in seriousness to your question I think it is foolish to believe we are the only intelligent species on this or off this planet with that said I would need some really hard proof of said being and not those fuzzy so called “pictures” that have been on the discovery or science channel

R_Ranger

I always like to keep an open mind, but not foolishly open

10:51 a.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
581 forum posts

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I have seen too many amazing things on this planet to rule out possibilities of more.

11:18 a.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
37 reviewer rep
71 forum posts

I think they are out there, they have hid from humans this long.

11:32 a.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
MODERATOR REVIEW CORPS
998 reviewer rep
3,485 forum posts

Well if they exist, they are way ahead of Homo Sapiens in terms of LNT.

I'm not going to say I think it is outside the realm of possibility, but we do know that a lot of the so called evidence is fraudulent.

Some of the people producing the evidence also make money taking people out on organized searches for the elusive creature.

If I see one I'll let you know, but I've got my hands full managing raccoons & mosquitoes.

12:58 p.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
200 reviewer rep
649 forum posts

But in seriousness to your question I think it is foolish to believe we are the only intelligent species on this or off this planet with that said I would need some really hard proof of said being and not those fuzzy so called “pictures” that have been on the discovery or science channel

I agree 100% and I too like to keep and open mind always but mostly when thinking or dealing of the "Controversial" whether it be aliens or sasquatch etc. When all is said and done I want hard indisputable proof.

7:04 p.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
33 reviewer rep
201 forum posts

not so much, same goes for nesse.

7:28 p.m. on July 7, 2010 (EDT)
37 reviewer rep
71 forum posts

Does anyone think man has explored every square inch of earth?

5:59 a.m. on July 8, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

Oh I KNOW Sasquatch exists, but have held back sharing my experience publicly. I spotted one feeding this huge serpentine lake creature. The creature spotted me and signaled my presence. The lake monster hoped into a UFO piloted by a big pink bunny that was holding a basket of eggs and they both took off, while the land creature sprinted into the forest. I chased after it over hill and dale, but right as I was about to catch up, the bunny and serpent came swooping in on their ride, beamed him up, and sped away. (I would proclaim my sighting publicly, except I think everyone will think I made up the bit about the bunny, serpent, and UFO.)

I can’t vouch for it personally, but I’ve run across people in SW Utah that claim they have seen Santa Claus. When I was young, my mother told me a troll resides in the dust bunnies under my bed, but I am too scared to look.

Ok enough of the nonsense.

I believe there are yet to be identified primates, but not anything similar to our locus of intelligence. That is not to say I think we alone are the sole creatures with advanced levels of intelligence, but those out there in the race – but others such as certain members of the Primate order and members of Cetacea and Proboscid orders manifest intelligence we have yet to comprehend.

There may be vast tracks of land remaining largely unexplored by modern science, but virtually all of this territory lacks sufficient resources to support sustainable populations of a large creature. The fact sightings are alleged in areas long inhabited by humans, the Pacific Northwest and the lower Himalayas for example, and yet no skeletal remains or other physical evidence beyond “footprints” support their existence, further makes the existence of these creatures suspect.

Proponents of Sasquatch’s existence quip: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is rhetoric in the context of any intelligent discussion. There isn’t much to discuss if the premise rests solely on faith. This whole subject is based on a few creative imaginations, our collective ignorance and faith, and a couple of pranksters perpetuating the legend. If not for the perpetrators outing themselves, the “believers” would still be postulating about crop circles. There are probably yet to be discovered “sea monsters” but Poseidon and Yeti are myths.

Ed

7:46 a.m. on July 8, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
581 forum posts

Ed,

You said:

Proponents of Sasquatch’s existence quip: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is rhetoric in the context of any intelligent discussion. There isn’t much to discuss if the premise rests solely on faith.

While I will not deny that my statement "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is rhetoric (that is "The art of speaking or writing effectively" - Merriam-Webster) I cannot claim that it is original. It is a truism and should be the underpinning of any intelligent discussion.

I am not a "proponent of Sasquatch's existence" but neither will I deny the possibility for lack of evidence; I simply reserve judgment.

Because no-one has seen quarks doesn't mean that I disbelieve in their possible existence. The same is true for the prevailing postulates of much of modern science. Scientists propose theories to explain the mechanisms of the physical universe; sometimes they can take it beyond theory - that is good science; sometimes they suggest/hint/insinuate that their theory is fact but provide no solid supporting evidence - that is bad science. [IMO, much of modern science is the latter - declarations of faith in scientists rather than the scientific method.]

I don't take my cosmology to a quantum mechanic to get it fixed, I repair it myself.

Reed

9:03 a.m. on July 8, 2010 (EDT)
MODERATOR REVIEW CORPS
658 reviewer rep
2,148 forum posts

sometimes they [scientists] suggest/hint/insinuate that their theory is fact but provide no solid supporting evidence - that is bad science. [IMO, much of modern science is the latter - declarations of faith in scientists rather than the scientific method.]

This is so true. An unconscionable percentage of what is represented as "scientific" and "educational" material is nothing more than fanciful extrapolation tenuously dangling from virtually nonexistent facts. It is deplorable. But that is another topic altogether.

On point though, it would take some rock hard, verifiable, repeated evidence for me to accept that there are Yeti in our wilds.

1:32 p.m. on July 8, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

I don't take my cosmology to a quantum mechanic to get it fixed, I repair it myself.

I love your prose! Hopefully your wife doesn’t see a cosmologist to get her makeup done either!

As for my use of the term rhetoric, I did not mean to connote its etymological roots; rather I meant to state the premise that you can’t prove a lack of existence may be a truism, but it is nevertheless vacuous in this context, since it doesn’t support the debate over Sasquatch one way or another.

But back on point; there are many things we do in fact choose to not believe, regardless of open minds, and regardless they have yet to be proven wrong, because they ask us to suspend reasonable probability. A moon made of cheese once was one such postulate, while levitation is another example. In the case of Sasquatch we need to accept some extraordinary presumptions that are leaps of faith to ponder its existence, meanwhile ignore all reasoned presumptions that precludes this likelihood.

Ed

1:47 p.m. on July 8, 2010 (EDT)
36 reviewer rep
148 forum posts

That is facinating and I feal, the proper way to view and think in regards to many subjects including peoples deepest beliefs. Thank you, whomeworry.

2:59 p.m. on July 8, 2010 (EDT)
16 reviewer rep
56 forum posts

Does anyone think man has explored every square inch of earth?

nah

but hell wouldn't that be a pretty depressing idea..

3:02 p.m. on July 8, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
581 forum posts

Ed,

You said:

...I meant to state the premise that you can’t prove a lack of existence may be a truism, but it is nevertheless vacuous in this context, since it doesn’t support the debate over Sasquatch one way or another.

Actually, if you had read all the posts you would appreciate the relevance of the remark. Yock, for example, was calling upon the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. So, my rejoinder was supportive of keeping an open mind regarding this and other matters until supporting evidence is found. That is how reasonable discussion occurs.

You said:

In the case of Sasquatch we need to accept some extraordinary presumptions that are leaps of faith to ponder its existence, meanwhile ignore all reasoned presumptions that precludes this likelihood.

Please, provide some examples of the facts underlying the presumptions both for and against the existence of this creature. Presumptions are based upon facts, what are these? Why do we need a "leap of faith" to ponder anything? As reasoning creatures shouldn't we examine matters dispassionately before determining for ourselves whether we have an understanding of the matter; yet you suggest that an investment in irrationality is necessary - perhaps for you it is.

6:00 p.m. on July 8, 2010 (EDT)
33 reviewer rep
201 forum posts

*pulls up a chair with a bowl of popcorn

7:46 p.m. on July 8, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
263 forum posts

Will make more Orville R's and watch............ I like mine with some butter.........

8:54 p.m. on July 8, 2010 (EDT)
37 reviewer rep
71 forum posts

When I was in grade school, I found a book in the library.

It had a blue cover, I wish I could remember the name of it.

Oh well......

It has some of the best photos of bigfoot, had a state to state break down of sightings, many stories from eyewitnesses. It was the best book about bigfoot that I have ever read.

Once I read that book, I was a believer!!

2:04 a.m. on July 9, 2010 (EDT)
MODERATOR REVIEW CORPS
658 reviewer rep
2,148 forum posts

Can I have mine kettle-corn style, or....ah what the heck, things are just starting to heat up over here, just pass some of that microwave pop on over...
;)

9:51 a.m. on July 9, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
581 forum posts

Do you have enough popcorn for everyone?

12:43 p.m. on July 9, 2010 (EDT)
200 reviewer rep
649 forum posts

kayakingdog said:

Does anyone think man has explored every square inch of earth?

nah

but hell wouldn't that be a pretty depressing idea..

Yes it would, thought alone is depressing.

1:20 p.m. on July 9, 2010 (EDT)
37 reviewer rep
71 forum posts

Did anyone see that tv show where 3 or 4 state troopers saw the same creature on a major highway. What would the coppers get for making a story like that up?

I could probably go on for hours, I read alot of bigfoot books, but

to each his own...........

by the way..

I'm going camping this weekend, we are planning to kayak the Juniata River, but water levels are way low. We Need Rain!!.

Anyways I will try to get some photos

Have a good weekend

2:22 p.m. on July 9, 2010 (EDT)
36 reviewer rep
148 forum posts

People always say "I want hard evidence". And for most that would mean a live or dead body. For science to believe, they at least want D.N.A. that excludes all known species. But its hard to discount the fact that there are an average of 400 (credible) sightings each year. And those are just the ones that are reported and checked up on. And finding a footprint miles and sometimes dozens of miles from any sign of human habitat makes it hard to believe someone would go to that length to hoax a print in the off chance someone might find it. A hoaxer would tend more towards well trodden areas. Recently Dr. Jane Goodall, the preeminent primatologist stated that she believes they exist based upon her well known and trusted friends sightings in different parts of the world. The indigenous peoples of virtually all wilderness areas on every continent have storys describing a similar creature. Upon close examination of some of the footprints and handprints a specialist in human and primate foot and hand prints ,Dr. James Chilcoot stated that with the discovery of dermal ridges on some of the prints ,that he uncategorically believes that we in north america have a resident primate. And his scientific testimony is accepted by law as capable of sentencing a guilty party to death or innocence. I could go on but at the risk of boring you all I`ll stop here with what in my opinion is enough evidence to at least make you think twice. As I said in my opening question, why not believe in at least , the possibilities?

4:08 a.m. on July 11, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

Hey if you guys are going to feed your faces while being entertained by a couple of nut jobs –perhaps I should only speak of myself that way – the least you can do is pop enough corn for us too!

Yock’s statement isn’t actually the classic lack of evidence in proof of absence postulate. The lack of evidence remark you posit is more typically applied to arguments such as the existence of God and extra terrestrial life forms, where direct witness or unambiguous evidence is impossible to produce. Yock’s statement is different. He is explaining man has inhabited this continent for a very long time, yet all we have to show as evidence is totem pole depictions, myths, alleged sightings, some hokey foot prints, and a couple of poor quality videos. Extending his inference, it seems by now someone would have sent blood hounds down the paths of these so called sightings and actually track one down, or real bona fide experts would have come up with hair (especially given the description of the beast!), scat, carrion, nests or encampments. Sighting have been ongoing for decades, so this creature must be procreating, yet no sightings identify more than a single creature, let alone a family or clan. It is worth noting they have also eluded detection by fire fighting crews when all matter of other life forms are flushed by advancing flames.

As far as presumptions are concerned, they need no factual basis. Pondering is often a leap of faith in itself. One presumes God exists. One presumes God created the universe, because the Bible says so, or the universe had to be produced by something, and it is too grand to be created by any other force. But the Bible is the word of God, so it is circular logic to reference that source, and it is an unproven fact everything has its creator, or a lapse in logic to conclude everything except God Himself came from something. Thus these are all leaps of faith.

Nevertheless, there are two primary leaps of faith believers in Big Foot commit: that eye witnesses are telling the truth, and accurately deducted what they saw; and that the foot prints and videos are not fabrications. There are other minor assumptions too, such as the notion this creature is so stealthy it can elude purposeful tracking; that the forests are so big they completely conceal all other evidence. The anti Bigfoot camp’s leaps of faith mostly rest on statistical probability that more substantive evidence can be produced, if they did exist. Surely evidence of hunting kills or browsing damage would be apparent, for this creature must eat quite a bit to attain his legendary size. He would have to have a winter and summer range, else a means to stockpile food for when it snows. Yet sightings are always where it would snow in winter, and no hordes of foods have be discovered.

Ed

2:16 p.m. on July 11, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
581 forum posts

Ed,

I didn't get any popcorn! :(

1/ Personally, I find Yock's use of the Absence=Evidence the same as the two illustrations you provided.

2/ I think you meant to use the term "conclusion" rather than "presumption". Presumption, by definition, requires facts and/or probability:

Main Entry: pre·sump·tion
Pronunciation: \pri-ˈzəm(p)-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : presumptuous attitude or conduct : audacity
2 a : an attitude or belief dictated by probability : assumption b : the ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief
3 : a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not certainly known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of some other fact

Merriam-Webster Online

A discussion is easier if we stick to standard definitions of language rather than Humpty Dumpty style. Ultimately, however, you did provide a good streamlined expression of the facts supporting theories of the existence or non-existence of Sasquatch. I would have preferred more on the anti side; the "lack of evidence" argument alone is weak as previously noted. Just a note, we have very large herbivores which live in our northern climate without creating visible browsing damage, storing food, or changing range -- moose. Theoretically, if a moose could do so, a primate could as well and might be inclined to be more furtive, perhaps even nocturnal as well.

All delightful speculation. I will continue to reserve judgment awaiting strong, irrefutable evidence from either side. We have too many "Lazurus species" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_taxon ) to be glib about this, scientifically speaking. Meanwhile, the weather is perfect today for coelacanth fishing. I'll take my little Caspian pony for the trip, he's getting frisky.

Thanks for the discussion,

Reed

8:16 p.m. on July 11, 2010 (EDT)
120 reviewer rep
137 forum posts

I farted once on the set of Blue Lagoon.

4:25 a.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
34 forum posts

Come on--we have the technology to fake the moon landing but we can't find bigfoot? Get real!

I know someone who claims to have seen a UFO. Well, not an "unidentified" flying object but an actual alien spaceship. People who interpret things as supernatural tend to have high schizotypy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypy. This person isn't crazy, yet is convinced that the alien spaceship was real, so I have no doubt that some people are convinced that they saw bigfoot, but I think something in the way of direct physical evidence would have turned up by now.

According to http://www.bfro.net there are "credible" reports from Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Illinois also. And what about the skunk ape and Ohio grassman? I guess the country is crawling with these things! Anybody know where I can get sasquatch spray?

4:50 a.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
34 forum posts

Here's a good one: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=596 The moral of the story is hang your pots in your bear hang or have bigfoot search through them for food! At least the guy didn't cook right next to his tent... ;-)

And there's no point in making three noises in a row to call for help because people will just think it's bigfoot knocking things together to scare them away: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=27323

Enjoy!

7:47 a.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
581 forum posts

The lack of evidence postulate is still weak.

We have a twenty-seven million dollar reward on Osama Bin Laden - http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm . After ten years with a hundred thousand searchers beating the hills, we still aren't certain if he is even alive. Logically, if a modern human can hide that well, a primate born in the wild should be able to as well.

9:26 a.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
36 reviewer rep
148 forum posts

Thanks overmywaders, I admire a writer who is concise and to the point.

12:17 p.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
36 reviewer rep
148 forum posts

Hey Peter O. Not only do we have the technology to fake a trip to the moon but we have the technology to actually put a human on the moon and land explorers on mars but sadly we don`t yet have the ways and means to open a closed mind.

12:34 p.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
TRAILSPACE STAFF
588 reviewer rep
3,079 forum posts

I'll keep my skeptic opinions to myself on this one.

I did read an interesting article in The Boston Globe this morning that reminded me of this thread though, "How Facts Backfire."

Remember, the article is about everyone, including ourselves.

3:41 p.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

The lack of evidence postulate is still weak.

We have a twenty-seven million dollar reward on Osama Bin Laden - http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm . After ten years with a hundred thousand searchers beating the hills, we still aren't certain if he is even alive. Logically, if a modern human can hide that well, a primate born in the wild should be able to as well.

Apples and oranges.
Questioning the whereabouts of bin Laden is not comparable to Bigfoot. Perhaps I am being presumptuous, but I doubt Bigfoot is actively generating misinformation and rumor as to its vitality or demise. Furthermore placing a price on his head only tests the loyalty of those who know of his existence – if he does exist. Lastly, bin Laden’s elusiveness can be facilitated by scores of supporters; whereas I doubt Yogi, Snagglepuss, and Bambi are in conspiracy to support Bigfoot.
Ed

4:02 p.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
25 reviewer rep
67 forum posts

.Ghost said:

I farted once on the set of Blue Lagoon.

Hence that is where all those little bubbles came from!

4:22 p.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

..A discussion is easier if we stick to standard definitions of language rather than Humpty Dumpty style...

..We have too many "Lazurus species" ...

Nothing Humpty Dumpty about my terminology, I buy into all three of the definitions you provide. I will be glad to add the below definition, too, which completes the intended use of this selected term.

Presumption – noun an assumption, often not fully established, that is taken for granted in some piece of reasoning. (Dictionary.com Unabridged)

When I wrote a presumption needs no factual basis, I meant something along the lines of what Alicia points out in her link to the topic about democracy, that people often draw conclusions based on belief something is a fact, when they are either misinformed or acting based on faith. Hence the definition I added to your list becomes pertinent.
-------------
To claim moose leave no trace is simply wrong; they do leave evidence of browsing; you need only know what to look for. Regardless they leave plenty of other evidence too; their scat is definitely not elusive, nor are their shed horns, rut marks, velvet slough, carcasses, or their physical presence for that matter. Regardless, dwelling on whether of not a creature leaves a particular evidence, or not, misses the point; creatures this large leave multiple teltales, and that should suffice.

I wouldn’t classify Bigfoot as a Lazarus species, since no physical evidence exists indicating such a beast ever existed. But while you bring up the coelacanth, this is an excellent example of the point driven home by Yock. A fisherman claims to have pulled one of these beasts up in his net. Investigators set about to verify this discovery, and eventually present live specimens, irrefutable evidence against extinction (or at least there is a fish alive today that physically matches the fossil specimen). If they had failed to produce compelling evidence, the naysayers would be presuming the original sighting was mistaken or a hoax. And that would be the accepted finding until more provocative evidence is produced. This is exactly where we currently stand with Bigfoot. We have only some foot prints and alleged images, but no irrefutable physical evidence.

The Caspian Ponies also are another good example why the truistic, lack of evidence equals lack of existence argument, is not applicable to this topic. In this instance some assert these ponies are descendants of an equine breed thought to be extinct some 3000 years ago. The evidence - or should I say lack thereof is what qualifies a species as extinct. You phrase is why zoologists are hesitant to declare a species extinct. But arguing if something ever existed in the first place is significantly different from arguing if something is extinct. The very declaration that something ever existed requires producing irrefutable evidence. The ponies’ existence was never in dispute; it is their lineage that is questioned. Yock’s argument isn’t debating whether or not a species that once walked the planet is still alive, nor does he necessarily assume Bigfoot is even a primate. He is requiring proof this thing even exists before opening the debate about its taxonomy. He is saying prove Bigfoot exists; countering his position challenging he prove it doesn’t exist is presumptuous.

Reed, I guess I’ll have pop us up some corn, since the peanut gallery demurs. Having fun.
Ed

4:25 p.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

.Ghost said:

I farted once on the set of Blue Lagoon.

Hence that is where all those little bubbles came from!

And also why it is blue!
Ed

5:53 p.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
581 forum posts

Ed,

A lot of logical fallacies floating around.

First, the burden of proof is always on the party making the assertion or proposition. You are making the assertion that Bigfoot (henceforth, BF) does not exist, therefore you must prove this negative. I am not making a counter assertion that BF is alive and well, I am undecided.

Second, you have chosen to prove a negative (a logical impossibility). The only mechanism of this proof is Terran omniscience and omnipresence - to permit you to view all places on the planet simultaneously. (BF may be dodging out of sight as we write.) Are you omniscient and omnipresent, at least as regards this planet? Let me hazard that you are not, as I don't see you in my living room at the moment.

Third, a factual fallacy. You said:

I wouldn’t classify Bigfoot as a Lazarus species, since no physical evidence exists indicating such a beast ever existed.

However, we have fossil evidence of Gigantopithecus blacki co-extant with Homo erectus (see http://www.pnas.org/content/93/7/3016.full.pdf+html ). If Gigantopithecus truly stood 3 meters tall and weighed up to 1200 pounds, he would make an admirable BF. I believe that the paleoanthropologists generally agree on the prior existence of Gigantopithecus, even to the point of his diet. (see http://www.pnas.org/content/87/20/8120.full.pdf+html )

Again, I am not making any assertions about BF and his possible existence. I simply want the game to be played fairly across the board.

Reed

8:36 p.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

Ed,

A lot of logical fallacies floating around.

First, the burden of proof is always on the party making the assertion or proposition. You are making the assertion that Bigfoot (henceforth, BF) does not exist, therefore you must prove this negative. I am not making a counter assertion that BF is alive and well, I am undecided...

..we have fossil evidence of Gigantopithecus blacki co-extant with Homo erectus...

The err in logic is assuming I am attempting to prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist. Re-read my posts and you will notice I deliberately used the words believe, faith and myth, none of which form the basis to prove anything. As I said both sides argue their case based on presumptions. I had no intention to prove Big Foot doesn’t exist. My statement is footprints and fuzzy movies are not sufficient to prove Bigfoot does exist. And if asked to choose sides, my opinion is the claims that argue in favor of Bigfoot are not as compelling to me as the presumptions that argue against its existence. So no, I do not have to prove anything more than those who believe the Easter Bunny does not exist; I am merely raising an eyebrow in the direction of the pro-Bigfoot camp, uttering REALLY? I am comfortable, given the claims and counter arguments, to side with the nonbelievers on this one.

As for the fallacy that I wrongly conclude Bigfoot is not a Laarus creature: There is no evidence such a creature ever walked in the western hemisphere. In that context there is no evidence such beast existed in the alleged North American ranges of Bigfoot. If you question this presumption, do consider the leaps of faith required to assume G. Blacki is Bigfoot. First you need to prove G. Blacki walked upright. Such evidence is limited to some jaw bone fragments and teeth, and furthermore requires you accept G. Blackie is a primate. There are many experts that contend using jawbone evidence to conclude G. Blackie walked upright is a bit of a stretch, lacking hip, leg, and other bone evidence that would unambiguously support this claim. Furthermore it maybe a coincidence G. Blackie teeth resemble primate teeth, which would nullify the tenuous argument for G. Blackie walking upright altogether, thus invalidate any claims the upright walking creature alleged to have been spotted is G. Blackie. This all plus no physical evidence linking G. Blackie to Bigfoot. In my opinion arguing G Blackie may be Bigfoot is like arguing about the rapture, when it remains unproven God even exists. To argue a fossil discovered in a South East Asia cave is evidence the species may have once walked in North America is almost as farfetched as claiming shark fossils found on mountain sides supports the notion they once walked on dry land. It can't be proven wrong, but who is open minded to this theroy? I think the believers and fence sitters just like the notion of a Bigfoot, and that alone is reason to believe or at least suspend disbelief.

Ed

9:18 p.m. on July 12, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
581 forum posts

Ed,

After all that blather; all the Humpty Dumpty "a word means what I want it to mean" or Nixonian "don't listen to what I say, listen to what I mean"; your long paragraphs trying to prove that Yock, in his concise three short sentences, didn't say what he most clearly said; all the obfuscation and less-than-artful-dodging (no physical evidence... no, I mean no physical evidence in North America); now you finally say that you have nothing to prove, no argument at all.

It would have been better if you had started by saying you had nothing to prove, because then your methodology would have been seen as fitting.

C'est fini. I have no dog in this hunt, no matter how small. And you have no hunt.

Have a good evening,

Reed

7:33 a.m. on July 13, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

Ah come on Reed, be fair about this. You throw dictionary definitions into this fray, but omit the full extent of the word’s meaning, yet I am being Humpty Dumpty when I agree to your definition and add one additional, credible, citation to your list. What is that about?

As far as being Nixonian, my prose carried no double edged meaning, I don’t know how much clearer I can make my assertion both sides of this argument are based on presumptions, and that it is my opinion one side is more persuasive than the other. I do admit, however, to being verbose, and I will write to whatever length necessary, if that is what it takes to convey my thoughts to someone. If that is the extent of fault you find in my posts I can live with that.

As for Yock’s statements, I did not say anything to connote he “didn’t say what he most clearly said” (talk about a Nixonian phrase!). If I misconstrued his words, I stand corrected when he corrects me; otherwise my take on his statements are as plausible as yours. Furthermore, I’m not a crook!

Artful dodging. Employing the can’t-prove-a-negative logic tact in this setting certainly dodges any attempt at an earnest conversation of a otherwise silly topic. It is a canned reply that can be whipped out on most any debate of the hypothetical, effectively shutting the door to any further conversation one way or the other. It can be used to defend the indefensible, such as the pink elephant in the room you allege may exist. At least I come down on one side or the other with an opinion, regarding Bigfoot’s existence; yet with all your sapient like musing, attempts to use me as a piñata for the pro Bigfoot cause, and ultimately using colorful, derogatory, adjectives to describe my statements, you can only muster the timid verdict: maybe he exists, maybe not. That, my friend, is the ultimate dodge in the context of this thread.

As for obfuscation, what would you call all this talk about Lazarus species, presenting a set of fossils as provocative evidence Bigfoot can exist, regardless experts are willing to draw few conclusions from said specimens, other than they were found in a very limited region of the world, and appear to be from a large primate. Yet you conveniently imply Bigfoot alone (and maybe that pink elephant) among all large animals is capable of going about his business without leaving any evidence of his presence, except some foot prints. That is pretty obscure logic, wouldn’t you say?

If I had anything to prove, it would be the lengths people are willing to go to defend their fanciful musings, suspending the plausible in favor of the improbable, to extrapolate a conclusion from chains of tenuously linked assumptions, and when all else fail (or in this case at the onset) disqualify any challenge with a sophomoric truism. Perhaps our exchange proves the premise of Alicia’s posted linked reference contribution to this thread. I have an opinion, but no, I personally have nothing to prove. As I stated in my opening comment (current) “evidence makes existence of these creatures suspect” and “This whole subject is based on a few creative imaginations, our collective ignorance and faith, and a couple of pranksters perpetuating the legend.” I don’t know how much clearer I can state myself. That you construe my comments as defending an alleged fact may be as much a misinterpretation on your part, as due to any flaw in my writing style. Alas, since I have nothing to prove, I have no methodology to defend. Critique my opinion all you like, and besmirch my writing style, too, if that provides the kind of satisfaction you seek to obtain from this exchange. I am glad we have reached an understanding where I stand.

I didn’t come to this dog and pony topic thread with neither dog nor pony, let alone intent to hunt. I am sorry if that is a disappointment. And I certainly didn’t intend to get personal. If I come off that way, particularly in this post, I apologize. Perhaps I was being a greased pig about this, and you were trying to wrestle me into a corner. I must admit it was enjoyable, and hope it made Orville Redenbacher some coin in the meantime. I may not agree with the choice of elements you use to substantiate your argument, but I enjoy your erudite commentary just the same.
Ed

8:20 a.m. on July 13, 2010 (EDT)
110 reviewer rep
762 forum posts

...And now back to our show, er, I mean topic.

Leave No trace has been using the idea of BigFoot for some time now. Why because there seems to be to sign of the creature whenever he is reported. What better means to convey the LNT message!


htp://lnt.org/bigfootchallenge/

Apparently the reason no one has been able to find this creature is because they have been looking for something that is black, white, or brown. In reality, Bigfoot is BLUE!


http://lnt.org/bigfootchallenge/

9:08 a.m. on July 13, 2010 (EDT)
36 reviewer rep
148 forum posts

So f clock, You are obviously going on the record and stating that you believe they exist. I`m glad to see someone in your prominant position finally chiming in on this one.

7:38 p.m. on July 13, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

In reality, Bigfoot is BLUE!

Actsilly Brad THAS me affer a niegh of sipp'n width Johnny
Ed

2:15 a.m. on July 14, 2010 (EDT)
110 reviewer rep
762 forum posts

I wouldn't say I've gone on record, but I will say that there a lot of things I haven't seen, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. For what it's worth, mountain lions are a hot topic here in NEPA, much the same as Bigfoot is elsewhere. We get calls weekly from people stating they saw one. When I ask if they have pics, the answer is always the same, "No." I say let folks live their dream.

6:22 a.m. on July 14, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

Folks of the forum:
I have been informed by the hosts of this fine website my recent postings in this topic thread were getting out of hand, verging on “flaming” (my term not theirs). I apologize to the Trailspace community if my comments or demeanor was offensive. Should anyone feel compelled to express their dissatisfaction with my behavior, feel free to send such comments to my personal email, listed in my profile, and I will address your concerns in a considerate, respectful manner.

Ed

12:31 p.m. on July 14, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
581 forum posts

Have no fear, fellow forum followers, our kindly moderator gently admonished me as well.

However, I won't make the same offer as whomeworry. If I have offended you by my tone, say so now on this forum thread so that all can learn. I won't even dispute your assertions or deny your right to be offended. Tell you what, I will have one tongue tied behind my back.

Regards,

Reed

2:55 p.m. on July 14, 2010 (EDT)
TRAILSPACE STAFF
588 reviewer rep
3,079 forum posts

No worries, everyone (oh wait, that sounds like it's addressed to Ed!).

What I mean to say is, I don't think anyone was offended. Personally I have found this a surprisingly intense and interesting conversation.

And if the participants aren't offended, then I think no one else should be either (except maybe Bigfoot and Yeti).

3:23 p.m. on July 14, 2010 (EDT)
37 reviewer rep
71 forum posts

He is out there...

Thats my opinion

5:04 p.m. on July 14, 2010 (EDT)
MODERATOR REVIEW CORPS
998 reviewer rep
3,485 forum posts

Wait.....this includes Yeti?

I have a photo of Yeti, it is an old 35 mm photo taken 20 years ago. If I can figure out how to convert the file type, I'll post it.

7:52 p.m. on July 14, 2010 (EDT)
37 reviewer rep
71 forum posts

The story of Ape Canyon is a great account from the year 1929. Has anyone hiked the area? It is on Mt St. Helen's north side. More than 1 bigfoot was spotted, and they became violent and started throwing rocks at the people.

Now if other people were waiting in the woods in costume in 1929, maybe it is a very well crafted hoax.

Who knows.................

7:56 p.m. on July 14, 2010 (EDT)
37 reviewer rep
71 forum posts

On a different note, I would certainly take the job as a full time bigfoot tracker. If some corporate entity would like to sponsor my reseach, sign me up!!!!

8:28 p.m. on July 14, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93844?fp=1

Who is going around putting hair removing cream all over neighborhood dogs? That is my theory anyway.
Ed

8:45 a.m. on July 16, 2010 (EDT)
MODERATOR REVIEW CORPS
658 reviewer rep
2,148 forum posts

For what it's worth, I wasn't offended by any of the comments, or the vehemence with which they were expressed. Though I suppose I might have felt differently if I was "in the fray" so to speak.

10:39 p.m. on July 16, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
263 forum posts


How can you argue with evidence like this?

1:04 a.m. on July 17, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
34 forum posts

I actually enjoy watching all of those Bigfoot/Yeti/Grassman/Skunk Ape shows on TV and reading about it on the internet. I side with kayakingdog in hoping that there's a Bigfoot-themed product or company that would sponsor us to check the entire continent for evidence along the trails.

My only stake in this argument is that if a large bipedal non-homo-sapiens primate IS out there, it would hamper my solo hiking. At least in the Pacific Northwest.

7:14 a.m. on July 17, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts


How can you argue with evidence like this?

Naaa! That's a phony golf cart; it left no tracks!
Ed

12:27 p.m. on July 17, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
263 forum posts

The tracks from the golf cart were blown over on a windy day mind you but not the big foot track.

9:57 a.m. on July 19, 2010 (EDT)
36 reviewer rep
148 forum posts

I believe the tracks are genuine, but the neon camping gear on the golf cart is not to be believed.

10:44 a.m. on July 19, 2010 (EDT)
TOP 10 REVIEWER REVIEW CORPS
2,329 reviewer rep
5,298 forum posts

This entire thread needs to be moved to OFF TOPIC, or WAY OFF TOPIC, or the FEEBLE ATTEMPTS AT BACKWOODS COMEDY forum.

Pretty good photoshopping, by the way.

3:15 p.m. on July 19, 2010 (EDT)
37 reviewer rep
747 forum posts

There are many fossil animals know only by a tooth, a single bone, or even just their spore. There are a great many plaster casts of bigfoot foot prints, and they have all kinds of data about the animals stride.

I live on the east side of the three sisters wilderness smack in the middle of bigfoot country. I know people who have told me first hand stories of seeing them, but perhaps what really changed my mind was when I ran into bipedal tracks as long as my forearm and spaced about 4 feet apart going up the side of Broken Top, one of our volcanoes. As I looked at those tracks the hair stood out on my body and I retreated in the other direction.

Hunters have had them in their sights and didn't fire because they "looked too human" and in Oregon or Washington if you killed one it would either be murder or poaching and either way a jury would decide your fate. So people are reluctant to kill them and everyone who sees one is laughed at because of all the "funny" faked reports intended to bring ridicule to the subject. But those with stories are very adamant about sticking to it.

Jim S

6:27 p.m. on July 19, 2010 (EDT)
110 reviewer rep
762 forum posts

These animals have been caught before. Some have been positively ID's as Coyotes w/ sarcoptic mange.

6:57 a.m. on July 20, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
263 forum posts

These animals have been caught before. Some have been positively ID's as Coyotes w/ sarcoptic mange.

You lost me there f_ ....... Granted, that's not hard to do these days.

7:34 a.m. on July 20, 2010 (EDT)
36 reviewer rep
148 forum posts

Thank you Jim S. for the factual account. I have been a believer myself all my life since age 12. One day my brother and I were walking in an area we grew up in, I was 12 at the time and he was 22. We had as always in those days a gun of somesort, this day a 22 caliber rifle. At that time the area I`m talking about was pretty much a true wilderness. You could walk all day and with just a little effort one could avoid people and no tresspassing areas. We had crossed from a meadow into a very large wooded area and gone about 100 yds. into the woods when I spotted movement about 50 yds. in front of us. I stopped and said to my brother, what is that as all I could see was something very large and walking on two feet. My brother looked for a while and then he said what the hell is that, and then I said It looks like the hind end of a horse because I kept looking and waiting to see four legs but they never appeared, only two. So I nervously asked him again, what is it, then he said I don`t know but do you want to run? and I said yes and man did we get out of those woods fast. When we got to a point where we fealt safe we stopped to discuss what we thought we saw. This is what I remember. As I said it looked like the hind end of a horse because I kept looking and waiting to see two more legs and never did. But the hair was a reddish color like the color of an irish setter and straggly and even semi curly. The shoulders would have been what appeared to be the horses rump and would have had such a massive neck as to appear to have a small head. I remember thinking at the time that if I shot at it the gun I had would be of no effect and it would probably just make it angry. The creature never turned to acknowledge our presence and just casually walked off and dissapeared into the woods. I can see it as clearly in my mind now as if it just happened this morning. My brother who is passed now only ever talked about it when pressed to do so, but always said he never knew what he saw. I personally can`t say what it was, but I can tell you all the things it wasn`t, and it wasn`t any thing classified. From then on I have been facinated by the possibility of an undiscovered primate in the wilds. Prior to my encounter I had never even heard of such a creature.

11:00 a.m. on July 20, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
263 forum posts

Me thinks you saw the rear-end of a horse......

11:17 a.m. on July 20, 2010 (EDT)
TOP 10 REVIEWER REVIEW CORPS
3,486 reviewer rep
1,237 forum posts

So, if you ever DID see one, would you shoot it or run it over just to show the world that its real? Would you try to take a picture then spend your life trying to convince the world it was genuine? Would you tell anyone? Would you eat one if it was grilled with portabella mushrooms and garlic salt?

11:58 a.m. on July 20, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
263 forum posts

So, if you ever DID see one, would you shoot it or run it over just to show the world that its real? Would you try to take a picture then spend your life trying to convince the world it was genuine? Would you tell anyone? Would you eat one if it was grilled with portabella mushrooms and garlic salt?

Blech! No I would not eat one....... Moot point.

8:34 p.m. on July 20, 2010 (EDT)
102 reviewer rep
2,295 forum posts

..My brother looked for a while and then he said what the hell is that...

That's a dead-on description of a Mugwump. They have the head of one in the general store just outside the Zion national Park main entrance, next to some white tail deer, and a Jackalope. I'd say you were wise to flee, since the speciman in the store had teeth just likie a mountain lion. Yea Noodle, Mugwumps look kinda like a horse's ass, except the petuti gots teeth.
Ed

9:05 p.m. on July 20, 2010 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
263 forum posts

Oh............ I may need to figur more securiti on nights in the woods.. Do they come to Colorado? I hate to think of being bitten by an ass with teeth!

8:11 a.m. on July 21, 2010 (EDT)
36 reviewer rep
148 forum posts

just be careful then when you consume finger food

October 1, 2014
Quick Reply

Please sign in to reply

 
More Topics
This forum: Older: Trouthunter's question Newer: My inquiring mind wants to know?
All forums: Older: FOR SALE: REI Quarter Dome T1 Tent - ULTRA LIGHT $150 / OBO Newer: Which tent?